alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018152EN.01005401.xml

| 30.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/54

---

Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)

(Case T-153/18)

(2018/C 152/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sona Nutrition Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solgar Holdings, Inc. (Ronkonkoma, New York, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colours red, light brown, beige, dark brown and golden brown, SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA — Application for registration No 13 781 299

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before EUIPO

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 in Case R 1321/2017-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 2017/1001.

---
Exhibit 21.01

|**SUBSIDIARIES**                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|Williams Controls Industries,
      Inc., a Delaware Corporation       
|Aptek Williams, Inc., a Delaware
      Corporation                     
|Premier Plastic Technologies,
      Inc., a Delaware Corporation       
|ProActive Acquisition
      Corporation, a Michigan Corporation        
|WMCO-Geo, Inc., a Florida
      Corporation                            
|NESC Williams, Inc., a Delaware
      Corporation                      
|Williams Technologies, Inc., a Delaware
      Corporation              
|Williams World Trade, Inc., a Delaware
      Corporation               
|Techwood Williams, Inc., a Delaware
      Corporation                  
|Agrotec Williams, Inc.
      (Agrotec), a Delaware Corporation       
|Williams (Suzhou) Controls Co.
      Ltd.                              
|Williams Controls Europe GmbH                                          
|Williams Controls India Private
      Limited                          
|Hardee Williams, Inc. (80%
      Owned), a Delaware Corporation        
|Waccamaw Wheel Williams, Inc.
      (80% Owned), a Delaware Corporation

61

---
# C_2020240EN.01002301.xml

| 20.7.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 240/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.7.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 240/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — EUROVIA Ipari, Kereskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-258/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - First and third subparagraphs of Article 10(2), Article 17(1) and first subparagraph of Article 18(2) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 63, Article 64(1), subparagraphs (a) to (c) of the first paragraph of Article 66, Article 167 and the first paragraph of Article 179 - Services supplied before Hungary acceded to the European Union - Exact price of that supply determined after accession - Invoice relating to that supply issued and paid after accession - Refusal on the grounds of limitation of the right of deduction based on that invoice - Jurisdiction of the Court)

(2020/C 240/30)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: EUROVIA Ipari, Kereskedelmi, Szállítmányozási és Idegenforgalmi Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Kúria (Supreme Court, Hungary).

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---
# C_2019054EN.01002601.xml

| 11.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/26

---

Action brought on 5 December 2018 — B.D. v EUIPO — Philicon 97 (PHILIBON)

(Case T-717/18)

(2019/C 54/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: B.D. — Boyer Developpement (Moissac, France) (represented by: E. Junca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Philicon 97 AD (Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark PHILIBON — European Union trade mark No 9 690 041

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2018 in Case R 375/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 21 December 2017; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 21 December 2017;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal applied the provisions of Regulation 2017/1001, which was not in force on the date of the cancellation request submitted to EUIPO. The Chamber failed to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 8(5) in conjunction with Article 53 of Regulation 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal applied the provisions of Regulation 2017/1001, which was not in force on the date of the cancellation request submitted to EUIPO. The Chamber failed to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 8(5) in conjunction with Article 53 of Regulation 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation 207/2009.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(B)

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard C. Christopher,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: August 8, 2006                    /s/ Richard C. Christopher
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Richard C. Christopher
                                        Vice President, Finance and
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        (principal financial officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.


                                       55
EXHIBIT 32
                              EASTON BANCORP, INC.
                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                         AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

CERTIFICATION  OF  PRINCIPAL  EXECUTIVE  OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


     We,  the undersigned, certify that to the best of our knowledge, based upon
a  review  of  the  registrant's  Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended  June  30,  2003  (the  "Report"):

(1)  The  Report  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended;  and

(2)  The  information  contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  the
     registrant.

                                     EASTON  BANCORP,  INC.
                                   ---------------------------------------
                                        (Registrant)



Date:    August  8,  2003           By:  /s/  R.  Michael  S.  Menzies, Sr.
       ------------------              ------------------------------------
                                                  R. Michael S. Menzies, Sr.
                                                  President
                                                  (Principal Executive Officer)



Date:     August  8,  2003          By:  /s/  Pamela  A.  Mussenden
        ------------------             ----------------------------------
                                                  Pamela  A.  Mussenden
                                                  Assistant Treasurer
                                                  (Principal Financial Officer)


<PAGE>
[751 NYS2d 356]

#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v Robert L. Smith, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Erie County,

November 6, 2002

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*James Harrington*and *Kevin M. Doyle, Capital Defender ("William Easton*and *Patricia Warth*of counsel), for defendant. *Frank J. Clark, III, District Attorney (.Frank A. Sedita, III,*and *Michael J. Flaherty, Jr.,*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*463OPINION OF THE COURT

Ronald H. Tills, J.

By application dated October 30, 2002, labeled RLS-4 (renewal and supplement), defendant seeks to have the court reconsider its decision of the same date based upon further written submissions. The district attorney relies on his response to the original motion labeled RLS-4 and dated July 9, 2002. Oral argument was heard on November 4, 2002.

Based upon a review of all relevant information submitted, the court finds as follows:

The United States Supreme Court decisions in *Atkins v Virginia*(536 US 304) and *Ring v Arizona*(536 US 584) do not render CPL 400.27 (12) constitutionally infirm. Defendant’s arguments to the contrary are premised upon the misconception that, under these cases, the prosecution has an affirmative obligation to prove that a defendant is not mentally retarded. This would be tantamount to requiring the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the *absence*of any factor which would render the defendant ineligible for the death penalty. Such is not constitutionally mandated.

Defendant’s further arguments include: (1) a sentencing jury, having been death qualified, might for that reason be more likely to find the defendant not mentally retarded; (2) a mental retardation determination would be unconstitutionally unreliable when made by the jury shortly after hearing the testimony regarding the killings; and (3) an instruction by the court to the jury that a finding of mental retardation precludes the death penalty would make the jury’s determination even more unreliable. Each of the arguments are based upon pure unsubstantiated speculation. The court finds no basis upon which to find constitutional infirmity under any of the three premises advanced.

Upon reviewing the order of the court dated October 30, 2002, and the statutory scheme as set forth in CPL 400.27 (12) (e), the court finds that the language set forth in said order requires clarification. If a pretrial mental retardation hearing is held pursuant to CPL 400.27 (12) (e), the court may not thereafter conduct a postconviction hearing pursuant to CPL 400.27 (12) (a) revisiting the issues decided therein. To the extent that the prior order may be construed to allow hearings under both subdivisions (e) and (a), the court refers to the statute which specifically precludes such.

*464In all other respects, the order of the court dated October 30, 2002 is reaffirmed.
Exhibit 23.02

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Board of Directors Williams
Controls, Inc.:

We consent to the
incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-43006,
333-59397, and 333-90565, on Form S-3 and No. 333-56591 on Form S-8) of Williams
Controls, Inc. of our report dated December 12, 2006, except as to Note 13,
which is as of December 14, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheet of Williams Controls, Inc. as of September 30, 2006, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders equity (deficit), comprehensive income, and cash
flows for each of the years in the two-year
period ended September 30, 2006, which report appears in the September 30, 2007
annual report on Form 10-K of Williams Controls, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP Portland, Oregon
December 14, 2007

72

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       32,445
<SECURITIES>                                  1,416
<RECEIVABLES>                                 1,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                  14,454
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             51,282
<PP&E>                                       26,178
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              108,009
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        53,719
<BONDS>                                       7,030
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   47,260
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                108,009
<SALES>                                     199,430
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            214,445
<CGS>                                       193,349
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               203,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              399
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (15,588)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (5,923)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (9,665)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (9,665)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.47)
<FN>
<F1>
THE ASSET VALUES FOR RECEIVABLES AND PP&E REPRESENT AMOUNTS NET OF
ALLOWANCES AND DEPRECIATION, RESPECTIVELY.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# C_2019230EN.01004602.xml

| 8.7.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/46

---

Order of the General Court of 17 May 2019 — Martini-Sportswear v EUIPO — Olympique de Marseille (M)

(Case T-237/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark M - Withdrawal of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 230/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Martini-Sportswear GmbH (Annaberg, Austria) (represented by: W. Lang, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Olympique de Marseille SASP (Marseille, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2018 (Case R 1755/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Olympique de Marseille and Martini-Sportswear.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Martini-Sportswear GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Martini-Sportswear GmbH shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.

---
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Steven D. Bonham, certify that:

1.I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Unify Corporation;

2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

| | /s/ STEVEN D. BONHAM               
| | -----------------------------------
| | Steven D. Bonham                   
| | Chief Financial Officer            
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting
| | Officer)                           

Dated: December 14, 2007



---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0284

________________________________________________________________________

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee,

Vs. 

INNA VICTORIA HALL,

aka INNA VIKTOROVNA POSTOLNIKOVA, 

aka NESSA CHRISMAN,

Defendant and Appellant. 

_____________________________________________________________

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing, , 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of 

time to and including April 19, 2021 within which to prepare, file, and serve 

Appellant’s opening brief on appeal. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 15 2021

03/15/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0284